4.5 Article

Multilaboratory Comparison of Quantitative PCR Assays for Detection and Quantification of Fusarium virguliforme from Soybean Roots and Soil

期刊

PHYTOPATHOLOGY
卷 105, 期 12, 页码 1601-1611

出版社

AMER PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1094/PHYTO-04-15-0096-R

关键词

-

资金

  1. North Central Soybean Research Program
  2. ARS [813296, ARS-0422909] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ability to accurately detect and quantify Fusarium virguliforme, the cause of sudden death syndrome (SDS) in soybean, in samples such as plant root tissue and soil is extremely valuable for accurate disease diagnoses and to address research questions. Numerous quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assays have been developed for this pathogen but their sensitivity and specificity for F. virguliforme have not been compared. In this study, six qPCR assays were compared in five independent laboratories using the same set of DNA samples from fungi, plants, and soil. Multicopy gene-based assays targeting the ribosomal DNA intergenic spacer (IGS) or the mitochondrial small subunit (mtSSU) showed relatively high sensitivity (limit of detection [LOD] = 0.05 to 5 pg) compared with a single-copy gene (FvTox1)-based assay (LOD = 5 to 50 pg). Specificity varied greatly among assays, with the FvTox1 assay ranking the highest (100%) and two IGS assays being slightly less specific (95 to 96%). Another IGS assay targeting four SDS-causing fusaria showed lower specificity (70%), while the two mtSSU assays were lowest (41 and 47%). An IGS-based assay showed consistently highest sensitivity (LOD = 0.05 pg) and specificity and inclusivity above 94% and, thus, is suggested as the most useful qPCR assay for F. virguliforme diagnosis and quantification. However, specificity was also above 94% in two other assays and their selection for diagnostics and research will depend on objectives, samples, and materials used. These results will facilitate both fundamental and disease management research pertinent to SDS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据